If you mean visual bloat, ok, there is more there. However, in 100% of the machines I installed XP on, from 128MB 300MHz dinosaurs to 1.6GHz screamers (at the time), XP was perceived to be faster - in every case. I didn't do any official benchmarking.
Just because XP added more stuff, it doesn't mean it slowed down because of the "bloat." Remember, Win2K was the first really new OS since NT4, released in 1996. 18 months later, MS rolled out XP, which was really Windows 2000 Pro but with many months of streamlining and optimizing, as well as adding some noob friendly features, most of which can be turned off.
I wasn't implying that XP runs slower than 2000; in my experience they perform about equally (although I must admit I'm impressed by your results). I just think the added features like picture viewing/printing, media metadata, and remote desktop are better handled by dedicated applications; and that things like the task-oriented Control Panel and the SP2 Security Panel or whatever MS calls it are a joke, at the expense of users who actually think they have a secure machine. Sure, I miss out on taskbar grouping and most-recently-run programs (why oh why will nobody write a shell extension to add these to pre-XP Windows?), and Remote Assistance would be really useful for helping my out-of-state relatives with their computer problems. But I'm okay with that.
Many may not upgrade to Vista because XP is good enough for them. I didn't upgrade to XP because 2000 is good enough for me. That, and the default display settings are butt-ugly :wink:. There is more to the story, though. I felt that XP not only didn't have much to offer, but that it actually took away in some respects (like having to reauthenticate if you upgrade too much of your system, and Microsoft's acknowledged ability to snoop on you with every Windows Update). They proved to be a lot less Orwellian than I feared when I first heard about them, but I sure as heck wasn't going to pay Microsoft for the privilege of giving up control of my computers. Vista takes away even more, with its stupid sandboxed video. And now we find out that the only version of Vista that's directly superior to XP MCE will probably cost significantly more. The only reason I can think of for anyone to upgrade their current system from 2000/XP to Vista is the eye-candy of Aero, which will probably require a $250+ video card. Note that it's not even a good reason, and that anyone of that opinion probably already has the Mac that is better suited to them anyway.
Here's the thing that no one has mentioned yet: With the x86 Mac coming out [relatively] soon, why would anyone pay $300 for Uber Vista when you can get Tiger for under $100? Almost everything that Vista does Tiger already does. Everything else is just fluff that can be added with 3rd party freeware (save the object-oriented UI). Those x86 Macs (with dual-boot XP) were looking pretty sweet before this announcement, and now it's looking even sweeter...
MS better get their act together soon, methinks. I've always been a strong proponent for Windows over Mac, but this may just make me jump the fence... Tiger is one of the best OSes I've ever seen. It makes XP looks like WinME in comparison. Vista had better be freakin' sweet if they expect me to upgrade my 4 machines... I'd rather buy new machines that can run both OSes than spend that much money and still be limited to Windows...
But 7 versions of Vista is too many. This is only going to confuse consumers. The enterprise may have time to figure out all the differences, but most individuals aren't going to have time or couldn't care less to figure it all out.
Support for all of these versions is going to be a nightmare.
Don’t really give a flying **** about Vista simply because of PVP-OPM. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend another grand on a monitor (Or close to it.) because MS wants some uber secure DRM connection from the HD content to the monitor. Don't care if the industry is pushing this. I shot my cash wad on my 2405FPW.
<groan> All this moaning about PVP-OPM is ridiculous! Sorry, but it is.
Look, if Microsoft and the Hollywood studios want to embark on some crazy DRM plan that requires new hardware, let them! All that means is that you won't have access to whatever they have planned - likely on-demand HD video streaming. Hardly ANYONE will have access to it for years because it will require monitors that don't exist today. I agree with you it's stupid...but that has NOTHING to do with the rest of Vista! People talk about PVP-OPM as if Internet Explorer or Microsoft Word won't work without a new monitor! It's all FUD, pure and simple. It's nothing more than another crazy DRM experiment that will fail in a huge way - but it won't impact my use of Vista in any way (as far as I know at least).
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
And now we find out that the only version of Vista that's directly superior to XP MCE will probably cost significantly more.
Where have you seen pricing information?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gibson042
The only reason I can think of for anyone to upgrade their current system from 2000/XP to Vista is the eye-candy of Aero, which will probably require a $250+ video card. Note that it's not even a good reason, and that anyone of that opinion probably already has the Mac that is better suited to them anyway.
Honestly, have you tried Vista Beta 1 yet? Or read about what will eventually be in the OS? If you think the only thing that Vista offers is a new Aero UI, then you're completely ignorant about what the OS will offer. If you want to stick with Windows 2000 because it works for you, hey, cool, but saying that Vista is only XP + Aero is simply ignorant and utterly false. It's like saying that XP is just a new UI over Windows 2000. Hell, Vista isn't even based on the XP kernel! It's based on the Windows Server 2003 kernel, which brings with it a whole whack of security benefits that XP will never have.
It's kind of sad to see that so many people think Microsoft has spent the past four years working on a new UI for XP and they're calling it Vista. :roll:
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Here's the thing that no one has mentioned yet: With the x86 Mac coming out [relatively] soon, why would anyone pay $300 for Uber Vista when you can get Tiger for under $100?
A very good point. That's one of the reasons why I think the pricing for Vista is going to be much less than most people are thinking...
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Here's the thing that no one has mentioned yet: With the x86 Mac coming out [relatively] soon, why would anyone pay $300 for Uber Vista when you can get Tiger for under $100?
A very good point. That's one of the reasons why I think the pricing for Vista is going to be much less than most people are thinking...
What about the hardware cost this might imply? Early indications that the major changes are not going to be friendly for older machines? The OS may fluctuate +/- $100 around current price points, but the hardware implications might boost the costs near the typical Mac price points. This, however, I must admit, would be a short-term implication...
What about the hardware cost this might imply? Early indications that the major changes are not going to be friendly for older machines?
Based on what I learned at the Longhorn Lab, and based on my experience with Vista Beta 1, it's about the same performance-wise as XP if you scale back the graphical features. You certainly need a decent PC if you want all the bells and whistles, but someone with a five year old PC won't want/need all that, so I think it's an unfair argument that anyone who wants to use Vista will need a new PC. Especially if they come out with a limited version that only costs $50 or something, the upgrade would be worth it for security alone. And we're in the era of the $300 computer - it's not like we're in the late '90s when even a basic PC cost $1500.
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
And now we find out that the only version of Vista that's directly superior to XP MCE will probably cost significantly more.
Where have you seen pricing information?
I said probably. As in, right now an upgrade to XP MCE 2005 costs about $120 to $150 and an upgrade to XP Professional costs about $150 to $200, and neither one is advertised as "the best operating system ever offered for a personal PC".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
Honestly, have you tried Vista Beta 1 yet? Or read about what will eventually be in the OS? If you think the only thing that Vista offers is a new Aero UI, then you're completely ignorant about what the OS will offer. If you want to stick with Windows 2000 because it works for you, hey, cool, but saying that Vista is only XP + Aero is simply ignorant and utterly false. It's like saying that XP is just a new UI over Windows 2000. h-ll, Vista isn't even based on the XP kernel! It's based on the Windows Server 2003 kernel, which brings with it a whole whack of security benefits that XP will never have.
No, I haven't tried the beta, although I did read a few reviews and see a lot of pictures. I know all about what will eventually be in the OS. WinFS is great, but it won't be available when Vista ships... and when it is available, it will be backported to XP. As will Avalon and Indigo; in fact IIRC the whole WinFX API will be available on Windows XP. Monad will not be available at release either. So we have a fancy new UI, the base set of which will be available on XP, and a search/information-oriented experience. Regarding that, look for Google to one-up Microsoft on their own platform. And as for security... well, I'm not holding my breath when it comes to Microsoft and security. They have quite a knack for poorly implementing good ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
It's kind of sad to see that so many people think Microsoft has spent the past four years working on a new UI for XP and they're calling it Vista. :roll:
That's not what's happening, and I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. But the base API platform will be available to Windows XP, and we have no idea when the really cool stuff will be available. Given all that, there doesn't seem to be much reason to abandon XP, especially if Vista carries a price to match its "best operating system ever offered for a personal PC" label.
I may be wrong on these opinions, possibly completely wrong. I am judging from past actions and events, both in pricing and in bugs and in features dropping out of Vista (or into XP) faster than I can keep track of them. I really am looking forward to checking out WinFS and Monad (finally, a real command line environment!), but they're nowhere in sight. It's possible that Microsoft have turned themselves around and are ready to impress us again, but if they value podcasting and RSS integration with the OS (gosh, that doesn't sound like an attack vector or anything) more than CSS2 compliance from IE7, I wouldn't count on it. Of course, I've never been to the Longhorn Lab and my analysis is admittedly based only on news and conjecture. I'll be happy if I am wrong.
I am looking forward to Vista for many reasons, one of them being 64 bit computing support. However, from what I understood (e.g. an article from Overclockers.com), it seems that legitimate purchasers of high deifination DVD will not be able to view them at full resolution if they don't buy a new video card and monitor:
Quote:
What is being described here is orders of magnitude more sophisticated than the protection schemes being cracked today. The content will be encrypted up the ying-yang, and decrypting will be heavily hardware-based with constant polling at multiple points in the system.
In a sentence, if your hardware (primarily your video card and monitor) isn't up to security snuff, and you try playing a future HD-DVD or the like, legitimate or not, it either won't play at all or at best will only play in low resolution.
If you just bought a bunch of state-of-the-art, cutting-edge equipment, this means you, too. Just about any monitor sold today doesn't have the circuitry needed to make Longhorn DRM happy. It's possible to have a little box/adapter that will make it happy, but they're expensive today, and it's clear that such technology will be discouraged in the future.
This does not seem to be about on-demand HD video streaming, but 'basic' playback of HD-DVDs, which is a much more mainstream activity. There does appear to be something to be concerned about as this seems to affect all users who want to view HD material. I know it's a huge big DRM plan by Hollywood, who want us to buy new hardware that Utterly locks down 'their' content, but in the end we may have to upgrade to new monitors and graphics cards if we want to view their films. Mass boycot anyone? :wink:
Linear Mode
